• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flynn reportedly to turn over business documents to Senate intel committee

poweRob said:
So I guess you think Nixon is still innocent then. Unless you caved after the 30 year gap where the Mark Felt stayed an anonymous source.
Click to expand...

Not remotely the same as today....
 
j-mac said:
Not remotely the same as today....
Click to expand...

Of course not. You approve of past anonymous sources but today... they are a sin?
 
Chomsky said:
You seem to be doubting the veracity of the leaks, claiming you no longer believe the media.



So I'm asking if you doubt this specific leak?

If so, I might have a proposition for you.
Click to expand...

45 tweeted an anonymous source this am in his defense of Kushner. Funny thing is that it backed up the claim of Kushner having secret, undisclosed meetings with the Russians.
 
Cardinal said:
I have a stupid question when it comes to having one's documents subpoenaed. What's to stop the person being subpoenaed from simply...destroying all their documents, emails, messages, etc. and then just giving a giant Alfred E Neuman grin and saying, "Documents? What documents?"

I've always been fuzzy on this.
Click to expand...

I would assume obstruction of justice and contempt charges.
 
Chomsky said:
You seem to be doubting the veracity of the leaks, claiming you no longer believe the media.



So I'm asking if you doubt this specific leak?

If so, I might have a proposition for you.
Click to expand...

Is the senate committee conducting a criminal investigation, or a counter-intelligence investigation?
 
Kobie said:
I would assume obstruction of justice and contempt charges.
Click to expand...

My question had more to do with the "how would they know" than the "what would happen if it was known I destroyed I documents."

But apparently a very real paper trail exists that would force Flynn to give some rather awkward answers to stern questions.
 
Cardinal said:
My question had more to do with the "how would they know" than the "what would happen if it was known I destroyed I documents."

But apparently a very real paper trail exists that would force Flynn to give some rather awkward answers to stern questions.
Click to expand...

Depending on what it is, they may not know.
 
Cardinal said:
I have a stupid question when it comes to having one's documents subpoenaed. What's to stop the person being subpoenaed from simply...destroying all their documents, emails, messages, etc. and then just giving a giant Alfred E Neuman grin and saying, "Documents? What documents?"

I've always been fuzzy on this.
Click to expand...

It worked for Hillary. :shrug:
 
Cardinal said:
Sure, if the documents are known to exist in advance. But if the question is something like, "Hand over any documents you may have on giving Boris and Natasha top secret information," what's to stop the suspect from claiming those documents never existed in the first place?
Click to expand...

The possibility that someone might rat them out.

There is also the possibility that the govt already knows about some transactions which they can use to match what Flynn reports. If they know of a tx, but that tx does not show on the records Flynn provides, that would show that Flynn had not complied with the subpeona

They might also have info from surveillance, or intelligence another govt shared with us. They might also obtain access to the business records of the other party involved in the tx.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
My question had more to do with the "how would they know" than the "what would happen if it was known I destroyed I documents."

But apparently a very real paper trail exists that would force Flynn to give some rather awkward answers to stern questions.
Click to expand...

Could be as simple as looking at Table of Contents and page numbers to look for missing pages and page numbers. Or looking for documents that can't be found but are referenced in another document. Almost always a trail to be followed. And confessions from deal breaking under pressure of jail time threat as well.
 
sangha said:
The possibility that someone might rat them out.

There is also the possibility that the govt already knows about some transactions which they can use to match what Flynn reports. If they know of a tx, but that tx does not show on the records Flynn provides, that would show that Flynn had not complied with the subpeona

They might also have info from surveillance, or intelligence another govt shared with us. They might also obtain access to the business records of the other party involved in the tx.
Click to expand...

poweRob said:
Could be as simple as looking at Table of Contents and page numbers to look for missing pages and page numbers. Or looking for documents that can't be found but are referenced in another document. Almost always a trail to be followed. And confessions from deal breaking under pressure of jail time threat as well.
Click to expand...

What I'm quickly gathering here is that I wouldn't be very good at "outsmarting" a criminal investigation.
 
Cardinal said:
What I'm quickly gathering here is that I wouldn't be very good at "outsmarting" a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

I will find you out... with my detective abilities.


 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
My question had more to do with the "how would they know" than the "what would happen if it was known I destroyed I documents."

But apparently a very real paper trail exists that would force Flynn to give some rather awkward answers to stern questions.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

Generally, I'm assuming if documents are subpoenaed, it's establishable that they exist.

apdst said:
Destruction of evidence.
Click to expand...

I assumed that would fall under obstruction, although that may depend on the jurisdiction and the statute.
 
Kobie said:
Ah, I see.

Generally, I'm assuming if documents are subpoenaed, it's establishable that they exist.



I assumed that would fall under obstruction, although that may depend on the jurisdiction and the statute.
Click to expand...

Two different offenses.
 
cuban smokes said:
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary ............ it's so funny we keep hearing folks around here screaming about Hillary ........... it's like heads are exploding .............. :lol:
Click to expand...

The poster wanted to know what would happen if someone refused to comply and produce subpoeaned documents

I gave a example of someone that didnt comply and who destroyed the documents and got off scott free. I was doing a public service, helping the guy out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom